2004 NCAA Football season (1 Viewer)

[george kaplan]

I didn't watch the game last night, although I just read that it wasn't a very impressive wins (fumbles, etc.). In any case, I did check out the polls and major props to the 3 coaches with the cajones to vote USC #1, despite the 'contractual obligation' bullshit. If the other coaches had had the balls to vote as they really felt, we wouldn't have a split championship, USC would be undisputed. And if the BCS is so certain of their system, they should let the coaches vote they way the want. If the winner of their game deserved #1, it would have gotten it. If not (as in this case), they wouldn't.

We may technically have a split championship, but only one of those polls was untainted in not coercing voters to vote a certain way, and they clearly chose USC.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

It's a real shame that USC, LSU and college football fans were denied the opportunity of what could have been a great national championship game. If the BCS makes only one change next season, please let it be making winning your conference title mandatory to play in the title game. It will not fix everything wrong with the BCS, but would have fixed the two biggest blunders it's had so far.

 

[Jason L.]

Scott,

Amen to that. If you are not the best team in your own conference, how can you possibly be the best team in the nation?

 

[Jed M]

I agree George, its a joke that LSU is considered National Champions. At least in the past a split championship was based on honest opinions, not on bribery to vote a certain way.

 

[Dan Mc]

Congratulations to the 2003-04 National Champion LSU Tigers!!!

There was a system set up before the season started to decide THE college football national champion. For all it's faults, this system was agreed upon by all coaches. AP writers should report the news, not make the news. This is why the BCS is the vehicle for determining the number one team in the land, not the polls. Congratulations to Nick Saban and all the players.

George, you should of watched the game...it was an awesome display of defense, something you don't get to see watching the PAC-10. I wish there could be one more game to show how no matter how high powered an offense USC may have, they wouldn't be able to score with their QB on his back for most of the game. Like they always say...Defense wins Championships!!!

 

[Jed M]

There was a system set up before the season started to decide THE college football national champion.

Actually they won the BCS championship. The National Championship has always been given out by the AP for the last 40 years, just for clarification.

 

[Dan Mc]

The National Championship has always been given out by the AP for the last 40 years

Actually, the AP awards the AP Trophy to the team that holds the #1 spot in the AP poll. Previous to the BCS, The "National Championship" has always been debated. This is why the BCS was created.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

you should of watched the game...it was an awesome display of defense, something you don't get to see watching the PAC-10.

USC's defense sure did a number on a potent Michigan offense. Last time I checked, USC played in the Pac-10.

There's no doubt that LSU had a very good team. It's unfortunate that this could not have been settled on the field between USC and LSU. Oklahoma did not belong in the Sugar Bowl. Those computer rankings that make up a large part of the BCS formula are a joke. Each one is still an individual person's (or a few people's) criteria for ranking teams. How is that better than an opinion poll of a collection of supposed experts in the sport -- sports writers for AP, college coaches for ESPN/USA Today?

 

[Jed M]

Each one is still an individual person's (or a few people's) criteria for ranking teams. How is that better than an opinion poll of a collection of supposed experts in the sport -- sports writers for AP, college coaches for ESPN/USA Today?

Exactly. The real losers in this whole thing is LSU. They didn't get a chance to play the #1 team in the country and because of that, they will always be remembered historically as the team that ruined the BCS because they didn't deserve their Championship (regardless of it they actually did).

 

[Carlo_M]

you should of watched the game...it was an awesome display of defense, something you don't get to see watching the PAC-10.

Yeah, I think the PAC-10 has some of the most creative offenses, which are hard to defend. Thus when the PAC-10 scores points on each other, it's viewed as "lax defense" when it could just as easily be said that we have good, balanced, hard-to-defend offenses.

Consider these Bowl Results (when teams play teams from other conferences):

The Big 12 went 2-6 (had Texas, OU and KSU all lose)
The Big 10 went 3-5
The SEC went 5-2
The PAC-10 went 4-2

So clearly the PAC-10 isn't deserving of the West Coast Bias that seems to pervade college football starting at Colorado and heading eastwards.

 

[Dan Mc]

The real losers in this whole thing is LSU

Trust me, no one in Baton Rouge are feeling like losers today. LSU holds the crystal football which says that it is the national champion. We can debate all day whether or not USC deserved to play in the championship game, but the bottom line is that they did not play in the championship game, and will not be remembered as national champions.

The BCS is the system that was created by the NCAA to crown a national champion, and that is what it has done. No amount of should of, could of will reverse that. The AP Trophy does not hold the same weight as it did before the BCS. The media has no authority over the NCAA...the NCAA crowns it's own national champion now, which makes sense, the NFL, MLB, etc, decide their own method for crowning champions. We can talk about how their method may be flawed, but that does not change the fact that these organizations are the only ones with authority to crown thier own champions.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

True Dan, and technically correct. But on the same token, the champion was CHOSEN, and did not WIN. Therefore, in the minds of many, USC is either a co-champ, or champ outright. So it is today, and always will be. LSU will be seen as a co-champ at best. Not out of any intended malice or spite. But people can recognize a flawed system. And when the BCS is crapped out, this will be one of the reasons. That is one measure of how this year will be remembered. The NCAA has the authority to call LSU champions on their own...but can't make anyone actually swallow that. In a sport determined by choice, not play, that's no authority at all.

Be proud of LSU. They are the co-champions in a very, VERY flawed system.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[george kaplan]

Well that's just ridiculous. USC will long be remembered as National Champions. I don't doubt that in the future LSU will also be referred to that way, but you're dreaming if you think anyone but LSU fans are not going to think that USC were National Champions.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

The media has no authority over the NCAA...the NCAA crowns it's own national champion now

Actually, the NCAA as an organization does not crown a national champion in Division 1-A football. The BCS is not the NCAA. It's an agreement between the major bowls, ABC TV and the major conferences for selecting which teams play in which bowls. The coaches become a part of it by their agreement to make the #1 team in "their" final poll the winner of that year's bowl designated the "BCS Championship Game". Before the BCS mess, the coaches just had another vote, which also could turn into a mess (such as the '97 retirement gift to Tom Osborn).

Therefore, LSU is the BCS/ESPN/USA Today National Champion, and USC is the Associated Press National Champion. In '97, Michigan was the AP National Champ and Nebraska was the ESPN/USA Today (or was it still UPI then?) National Champ.

 

[Jeremiah]

I don't think LSU is the loser in this whole thing, or ruined the BCS. LSU looked pretty damn good on defense last night and it would of been an awesome match-up against USC. Leinart is far and away better than White and Leinart would of made quite a few plays were White failed miserably.

 

[Carlo_M]

I agree with Jeremiah. Neither USC nor LSU came out as losers - they both earned a share of the national title (just like in years past with split NCs).

The real losers are the BCS proponents, who will have to go back to the drawing board again, and of course, us - the fans - who would love to see USC and LSU square off.

 

[ThomasC]

I don't doubt that in the future LSU will also be referred to that way, but you're dreaming if you think anyone but LSU fans are not going to think that USC were National Champions.

What makes USC better than LSU?

 

[John Thomas]

How is that better than an opinion poll of a collection of supposed experts in the sport -- sports writers for AP, college coaches for ESPN/USA Today?

I don't know, but some who subscribe to this line of rationale don't apply it to the Academy Awards; at least not past 1975.

 

[Patrick Sun]

What makes USC better than LSU?

Prettier uniforms.

 

[Carlo_M]

Funny-I was going to say prettier cheerleaders.